Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2017, 03:58:56 PM »
Here is my plan for this.  Pretty simple really and somewhat of a high school project.  I am going to print out scale models of each continent based on localized maps.  Sized to known distances. Then it will be a simple matter of laying those out on a flat table and position them based on known indisputable distances via published airline data.  Should be exactly what a flat earth looks like right?  I would welcome help from Tom Bishop on this.  It could support his position.


Photos to follow.
I can see Tom's rebuttal already. "How do you know any of those distances are correct?" Jura appears to be right, he'd rather attempt to cavil at every turn, than actually accept a point against FE. Which I find mildly amusing when he personally can barely form a point FOR FE. I'm interested to see what you come up with though, I'm fairly confident in what will happen but curious just where the 'worst' locations and 'best' locations will be. Hey, maybe you'll suddenly find a way it can work somehow. Considering it sounds like the FE community has put nil effort into doing this up until now, I suppose it's possible.

Tom gives himself away regularly.  Like a "poker face".  You can plot what topics he's afraid of based on which threads he runs away from or tries to derail. 

But to your point. Distances between continents using average published flight distances, speeds, and duration of 4 engine aircraft in the southern hemisphere would be hard to argue.   Distances within continents would be much more accurate since we know how big Australia, South America, New Zealand (yes I know, not a continent), and Africa are.

This thread needs to be kept alive and linked to provide valid data to newcomers of the site.
Unless you believe (as Tom seems to) that air speeds are based on how long it takes to get from one location to another with 'Round Earth math' distances. I showed him how air speed is actually calculated, but he's so far ignored the whole post. I presume he'll find some way to pretend air speed isn't accurate either though honestly.

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2017, 04:22:19 PM »
3DGeek, I want you to know you're a genius. This eradicates any doubt for anyone in their right mind.

Tom Bishop, I want you to know that your argumentation here is really, really lazy and I think it's embarassing that you as kind of an authority on FET run away from every thread that threatens your worldview with sound logic and pretty much indisputable proof, all while bringing minimal evidence to the table yourself and cowardly questioning thoroughly explained and verified numbers AFTER YOU USED THEM YOURSELF to try and prove your own thesis. I wonder how you justify that last bit in particular? ::)


Anyway, TomInAustin, while I think it's cool that you're trying this, keep in mind that even if you should find a configuration where all the distances miraculously match up, there's still huge problems like the possibility of circumnavigation and the Earth's magnetic field that need to be thought of. Though personally, I would love to see a FE map that actually works out.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2017, 04:40:24 PM »

In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

I already did that in STEP 1.   Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good.   I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.

So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.

We could repeat this exercise with the other airlines too - but to be honest, you're clutching at straws if you think that's going to change the answer here.

Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences -  your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.

Quote
Quote
So - what you resort to is the rather pathetic complaint that there are no direct flights between some of those four cities with which we could back up the WorldAtlas distances between them.   I would also point out that if you go to Google Maps - and enter those same cities and ask for an route BY AIRPLANE - it comes out with very similar numbers...within 1%.

Please show that any of those sources are based on logs and not a Round Earth model.

We can do that too - there are plenty of realtime flight tracking web sites that show the aircraft moving along those routes.

Quote
And if you bring up cruising speed, please show how the cruising speed of the aircraft was calculated. Based on a test flight to a location with a "known" distance according to Round Earth Theory in the aircraft's development?

Well, they know the drag coefficient of the airplane - some from theoretical measurements from the CAD data and other times from actual wind tunnel data.  Combine that with the navier-stokes equation - the known (measured) efficiency of the engines and the rate of fuel consumption - and you wind up with the optimum fuel consumption rate.

But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly?   That's not been true for at least 40 years.   The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance.   All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut.   Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway.   We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.

However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:

1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere.  Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.

2) In order to make the Sydney-Australia/Santiago-Chile route with either of the two FET maps - the airplane would have to be flying at twice the speed of sound.   Now - when an airplane breaks the sound barrier, (a) it creates an almighty sonic boom...which isn't happening for passenger airlines and (b) the airplane has to be DESIGNED to handle the airflow around the body and (especially) through the engines because air behaves VERY differently at 1mph over the speed of sound than 1mph below it.   The 747-400 (and every other passenger airplane except Concorde) is not designed to handle those speeds.   The engines alone would simply cease to function.

So no Tom...these are just coming across as really whiney, pathetic criticisms.   I've covered ALL the bases here.   There is not one single chink in the armor of this series of logical steps.

YOU   ARE   WRONG!

« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 04:44:52 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #83 on: August 11, 2017, 05:05:06 PM »
3DGeek, I want you to know you're a genius. This eradicates any doubt for anyone in their right mind.

No, sadly - I'm no genius.  I just follow the FET argument toward it's logical conclusion until it reached breaking point...then I back-track to where their theory is broken and try to find evidence to back it up.

In my job, I make 3D graphical representations of the world for flight simulation - so I know a lot about geometry and a lot about aircraft, spacecraft, etc.

Computer graphics chips are not really designed for round earth - hardly any video games have round earth geometry in them...it's just easier to make everything flat.

But in "serious" flight simulators, the errors that are showing up in FET would be insanely obvious.   Pilots need round-earth simulations in order to be able to fly from point A to point B in the simulator.    Many simulators actually use real-world aircraft parts (because it's expensive to re-engineer a "fake" that would function exactly the same).   So (for example) the 747 simulators we built for Qantas (and many others) use the actual navigation computer from a real 747 of the same model number.   We have to use our software to feed it position, compass, air-speed, GPS and accelerometer data so that the instrument 'believes' it's really flying around the world.   Therefore I know for 100% certain that if you feed a 747's navigation system with flat earth data - it'll get severely screwed up and produce utter garbage for your position, speed, etc.   It would literally be "unflyable".   So our simulator has to provide an accurate representation of the shape of the world.

We don't treat the world as a sphere - or even an "oblate spheroid" because neither is a sufficiently accurate description to make things like the 747's nav computer behave.   We use a mathematical description of the shape called "WGS-84" which derives from the "World Geophysical Survey of 1984" (which has subsequently been confirmed in several other WGS reports).

The true shape of the planet is very *VERY* close to being a perfect sphere - but not close enough to actually work for airlines and military aircraft.   If you shrunk the world to the size of a pool/billiards ball, it would be sufficiently close to a perfect sphere to be acceptable for competition pool/billards under their rules!

Anyway - I know the Earth is round - it truly can't be any other shape.  The enormous mountain of nonsense put out by the likes of Tom Bishop don't hold water.   They are vague to the point of stupidity - these theories of how various things happen are inconsistent - there is no viable map (and now we've proved that there can't ever BE such a map) - gravity doesn't work, the motion and appearance of sun, moon, planets and stars don't work...really it's an untenable hypothesis.

But it is rather amusing to come up with ideas like this thread that pile on the evidence layer upon layer - forcing the likes of Tom into more and more bizarre suppositions.

Now we're supposed to believe that the makers of passenger airplanes don't know how fast they can really fly and the pilots of them are mistakenly flying them faster than the speed of sound without knowing it!

Please...NOBODY believes that Tom...just nobody...you're making an idiot of yourself if that's your claim.

Anyway - onward.   I have some more ideas for proofs along these lines.   Right now I'm trying to get a group of people who'll take a photo of the moon at some particular date and time from at least three places with the same longitude and different latitudes.   It turns out that this isn't easy because photos of the moon taken with cellphones are crap - so I need to find three or more people with decent SLR cameras.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #84 on: August 11, 2017, 05:52:53 PM »

Well I know where you are going with this, as you will cavil away until the end of time rather than concede a point. However I have driven a good deal of this continent (from northern Scandinavia to southern Spain) over the years, using both maps and GPS, and it joins up, mileage is in the limits you expect from elevation changes and getting lost and I have always got where I wanted within the times I calculated.

GPS coordinates distances are based on a Round Earth. It will just tell you the Round Earth value.


In STEP 2 I demonstrated that the distances produced by the "WorldAtlas" site produces distances that are within 1% of Qantas' distances - and therefore whatever internal math it's using is a very good match for airline distance statements in general.

You used those numbers (without a word of complaint) when you (incorrectly) believed that they supported your Flat Earth Theory and triumphantly quoted them when you THOUGHT they disproved the Round Earth.  As it turns out, this is a clever trap that you fell into.   I wish I was smart enough to have planned it that way...but I'm not.

Please show that the distances in that link are based on flight times and not a round earth.

I already did that in STEP 1.   Notice that I looked up the cruise speed of the specific aircraft that Qantas fly - then compared their stated flight time at that speed with the distances they claim and the match is extremely good.   I also gave a link to a site that tracks how many times flights from various airlines are on-time - and for Qantas, it's very good - so again, we know that the stated flight times along with the speed at which their airplanes fly is a great match for the distances they say they are flying.

You will need to show that the aircraft is not using maps, instruments, or GPS computers which assume Round Earth coordinates. How is this distance being computed, exactly?

Quote
So I have verified the flight distances - by comparing them to times - and proving that this is how long they actually take to get there.

No, you have not. Firstly, we don't know whether the distances between two points stated on that Qantas website, or on any of the website which were posted here, is based on flight times or the Round Earth expectation. You have yet to demonstrate this.

Secondly, you will need to demonstrate that a flight time from Point A to Point B is a reliable indicator of the average cruising speed. If the aircraft's cruising speed was originally measured based on the distance between two points, since all instruments assume Round Earth coordinates, that cruising speed may be in error.

Quote
Bear in mind - we're not looking at subtle differences -  your maps (ALL OF THEM) predict flight distances that are 200% to 300% of what the airlines claim - and which would require aircraft to fly at twice to three times their maximum airspeed in order to EVER make their schedules.

There is no Flat Earth Map. We don't know where any discrepancies might show on such a map. There are monopole and bi-polar models, with a near infinite number of continental map configurations.

Quote
We can do that too - there are plenty of realtime flight tracking web sites that show the aircraft moving along those routes.

You will need to show that the distance from A to B is actually what is displayed on such "live" maps, and you will need to show that the cruising speed is accurate.

Those maps are probably assuming Round Earth data.

Quote
But do you truly believe that airplanes are designed - then test flown to determine how fast they'll fly?   That's not been true for at least 40 years.   The airplane is designed VERY SPECIFICALLY for a particular speed, range and endurance.   All of this is carefully calculated long before the first piece of metal is cut.   Airlines buy airplanes that meet a specific performance before the first test flight...and actually, test flights have become something of an anachronism anyway.   We know exactly how a plane as expensive as an airliner will fly long before it ever flies.

Unless they are pointing a police speedometer laser at the airplane, how do they actually know how fast it flies without some kind of reference to the ground? Since all navigational instruments assume a Round Earth, a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.

The plane may be built "very specifically" for a certain speed and range, but all of that is based on the Round Earth speeds and ranges of previous planes, and therefore that is a fallacious argument.

Quote
However, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere for two very good reasons:

1) Your maps consistently produce shorter routes than are realistic in the Northern hemisphere and longer routes than are realistic in the southern hemisphere.  Since the cruise speed of an airplane is the same in the North as in the South - your conjecture that the cruise speeds are "off" by a factor of two or three doesn't hold water.

Again, there is NO flat earth map. It is UNKNOWN if the Southern Hemisphere is large, if it is large and the continents are more squished together, or if the bi-polar model or other type of model with a smaller Southern Hemisphere is correct.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 03:48:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #85 on: August 11, 2017, 05:57:53 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #86 on: August 11, 2017, 05:59:10 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #87 on: August 11, 2017, 06:03:27 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #88 on: August 11, 2017, 06:10:54 PM »
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #89 on: August 11, 2017, 06:12:27 PM »
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable.

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2017, 06:19:19 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Offline Mock

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2017, 06:20:00 PM »
Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile and pathetic attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 06:23:37 PM by Mock »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2017, 06:21:31 PM »
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed



LOL, everyone in aviation knows airspeed is not used for navigation.  I have actually glided backward due to headwinds.   Ground speed is what is used to calculate distance traveled, ETA, etc. 

Now try and stay focused Tom.  Saying that using distance to calculate flight duration is not accurate is just lazy or dishonest.  Take your pick. 


Quote
Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.

Ussualy called miles or kilometers.  Look them up, quite useful.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2017, 06:24:02 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?







I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #94 on: August 11, 2017, 06:25:12 PM »
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
IAS, CAS, and EAS are all used and quite useful for the aircraft. 3DGeek even explained much about what goes into the workings of a plane and it's instruments in the post above, and the accuracy to which they are held (demanded in fact) for flight. At this point I might just wait for him to chime in again, because you're being picky about things you appear to know little to nothing about, and I know very little (if anything) more than you about them.

Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Welcome to 'debating' Tom. He can't or refuses to answer simple questions about his FE, but demands detailed and intricate information about anything we put forward and demands we explain anything he doesn't get. Then from what I've seen, when we do, he cuts bait and deflects or otherwise. Shame really, but FE has put very little effort into actually coming up with anything to do with math for their hypothesis that I've seen. It's all gut feeling and visuals.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2017, 06:27:29 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.
Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 06:29:54 PM by inquisitive »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2017, 06:34:14 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 06:37:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2017, 06:42:22 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
What instruments do you require, please provide a detailed specification.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2017, 06:45:15 PM »
I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Quote
Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.
IAS, CAS, and EAS are all used and quite useful for the aircraft. 3DGeek even explained much about what goes into the workings of a plane and it's instruments in the post above, and the accuracy to which they are held (demanded in fact) for flight. At this point I might just wait for him to chime in again, because you're being picky about things you appear to know little to nothing about, and I know very little (if anything) more than you about them.

Tom Bishop, now this is just ridiculous.

You. Used. Those. Numbers. For Your Own. Damn. PROOF

I was assuming that the OP had honestly looked into the matter to produce a legitimate source. It appears that he has not. We do not know how that distance figure is generated.
Of course he has. Didn't you read his posts? Half of his proof consisted of making sure the distance figures were all right. He put more effort into producing a legitimate source than any FE-supporter I have ever seen.

You literally get people pulling stories out of their arse about how the moon is a dormant cold sun that symbolizes yang, and you people say it's an interesting idea worth looking into. Then some RE-supporter comes around with a proof derived from sound sources that follows sound logic and sound, universally accepted science and math, and you suddenly have the audacity to assert that his carefully researched numbers, which were good enough for you mere hours ago when you made a futile attempt to prove your own theory, do not accurately represent the distances they should.

Well, maybe those discussions would be easier if you actually got things done with your FE theory. You're not even able to make a map - actually you can't even devise a mere model for how your hypothetical map might look that works in accordance with observed phenomena. What distances is he going to use? He already did great work by not just googling the distances, but actually cross-checking with flight times from airlines. If you can come up with a better way to determine the distances in question so you'll finally be happy with them, please enlighten us. Sadly we can't use a Flat Earth Map because - hey, did I mention you still fail to come up with a map of your own?

It's like for some reason you think you know the Earth is flat, but apart from that you really have no idea at all about how it might look. Of course it's not easy to argue about something you consciously refuse to even sufficiently define. God, the hypocrisy.

Welcome to 'debating' Tom. He can't or refuses to answer simple questions about his FE, but demands detailed and intricate information about anything we put forward and demands we explain anything he doesn't get. Then from what I've seen, when we do, he cuts bait and deflects or otherwise. Shame really, but FE has put very little effort into actually coming up with anything to do with math for their hypothesis that I've seen. It's all gut feeling and visuals.

Yup, Tom is a piece of work.   I wish I could find the quote, in a thread about merging the 2 forums he said something along the lines of "What they get is Tom Bishop" in a response to why the 2 should join.  LOL.  I will settle for the quote in my sig that tells all, a thread he started and then ran away from.


I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2017, 07:01:41 PM »
There is no round earth model. There is a model of the earth, agreed, proven and accepted, which shows the earth is round.

Do you have a method to design a model of the earth which might prove otherwise?

The coordinates in these navigational instruments assume that the earth is round; and therefore are invalid as a proof for distances. Such systems would need to be entirely reprogrammed on different base assumptions.

A method would be required that did not assume a Round Earth to find the distance an aircraft has traveled. We currently do not have Flat Earth flight programs or instruments available, as our funding allocated for aircraft navigation related matters is currently non-existent.

Man, you just can't stop digging that hole, can you?  Any clue as to why they assume a round model?  Could it be because they have worked for centuries?  From Sextants to Loran, to GPS?

They work as far as getting you to a certain coordinate, but the distance between two points is based on that coordinate system. The coordinate systems use assume a ball earth. The Round Earth coordinate system must be shown to be correct in order to use the results of any of these instruments as evidence.

Let us start with the shape and size of Australia.  Do you accept the published details?

If the details were estimated with Round Earth coordinates, no.

Quote
What, exactly, do you require as instruments or programs?  I thought you were not sure the earth is flat.

The coordinate system in Round Earth Theory assumes that the coordinate points are sitting on a sphere. This makes the use of instruments which use such assumptions (even old physical navigational instruments used with a mercator maps) to be in question and not acceptable as evidence for the matter at hand.
What instruments do you require, please provide a detailed specification.
On that note, would any of these methods suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.